On April 12, 2021, when John Coates, the acting director of the SEC Division of Corporate Finance, and Paul Munter, the SEC’s acting chief accountant, issued a statement noting their concerns about the way that SPACs were accounting for warrants issued in connection with SPAC IPOs, they also noted that some entities may need to reclassify the warrants from equity to liabilities, and that the change in accounting treatment might require some entities to restate prior financial statements. As it has turned out, many SPACs have in fact reclassified their warrants and many have in fact restated their financials, as discussed below. In at least one case, discussed in earlier post on this site (here), a SPAC-acquired company that restated its financial based on the warrant accounting issue has been hit with a securities class action lawsuit – which raises the question whether other restatements by other SPACs and de-SPACs will trigger further securities class action litigation.
That is the question asked in a June 22, 2021 Law360 article by Elaine Harwood, Steven McBridge and Laura Simmons of Cornerstone Research entitled “Will SPAC Restatement Wave Trigger Shareholder Litigation?” (here). As discussed below, the authors’ article addresses several interesting and important questions about the warrant accounting issue and the possibility for further litigation. Continue Reading Will SPAC Warrant Accounting Restatements Result in Further Securities Class Action Litigation?
Last summer, when California 
When the U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of certiorari to take up class certification questions raised in the long-running Goldman Sachs securities class action lawsuit, 
We are now well into the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic, yet at this late date the COVID-19-related securities class action lawsuits continue to come in. In the latest example, Ocugen, a U.S.-based gene therapy development company that hoped to develop a COVID-19 vaccine, was hit with a securities class action law after a setback in its regulatory approval efforts. A copy of the plaintiff’s June 17, 2021 complaint against Ocugen can be found 
In a very interesting June 16, 2021 opinion, the Ninth Circuit has reversed in part the district court’s dismissal of the privacy and cybersecurity-related securities class action lawsuit filed against Google- parent Alphabet, Inc, relating the company’s discovery of and decision not to disclose a software vulnerability that exposed user data of nearly half a million users of the Google+ social media site. The appellate court’s decision, a copy of which can be found 
On June 15, 2021, the SEC announced that that it had settled charges that a title insurance company’s cybersecurity disclosure controls and procedures violated the agency’s public company reporting requirements. The title insurance company, First American Financial Corp., which neither admitted or denied the charges, agreed to a cease-and-desist order and to pay a penalty. The charges do not represent the first time the SEC has pursued actions against a company for cybersecurity-related disclosures, but they do underscore the agency’s focus on cybersecurity disclosure-related issues, a topic that may be a source of increased focus ahead. 
Shortly after Marriott International’s November 2018 announcement that it had uncovered a data breach in the guest registration system of Starwood (which Marriott had acquired two years earlier), the company was hit with a raft of litigation, including both securities class action lawsuits and shareholder derivative lawsuits. In twin June 11, 2021 opinions, the federal district judge presiding over the various Marriott data breach-related lawsuits granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss both the consolidated securities suits and the consolidated derivative suits. The lengthy and detailed opinions make for interesting reading and underscore the challenge plaintiffs face in trying to turn a cybersecurity incident into a D&O claim. The opinion in the securities suit can be found 
The business pages have been full in recent months with tales of cyber extortion and ransomware. In an effort to try to explain these developments, some commentators have suggested that the availability of ransomware coverage under cyber insurance is a cause of the problem. In the following guest post, Paul Ferrillo takes on the question of the role of cyber insurance availability in the proliferation of ransomware incidents. Paul is a partner in the securities litigation group at the Seyfarth Shaw law firm. I would like to thank Paul for allowing me to publish his article as a guest post on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this blog’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is Paul’s article. 
There have been several investment fads and mass enthusiasms this year that have been agitating the financial markets, but amidst the froth the fizziest speculative investments on the scene are non-fungible tokens (NFTs). This new asset class uses blockchain technology to track tokens that are attached to verify the authenticity of everything from artwork to sports highlights. The boosters of these assets have mined the enthusiasm for collectibles to drive sky-rocketing asset values for NFTs. With this new type of asset attracting so much attention and activity, it arguably should come as no surprise that the backers promoting NFTs have attracted litigation as well.